Jump to content
GregM

Photos hosted by Photobucket not visible on the forum (solved incl. hotfix for Opera 12.17 browser)

Recommended Posts

Since this weekend, I can't see any photos hosted on TC when browsing through threads anymore. There's just a placeholder text. When clicking that text, an empty window opens along with a loading icon, but it won't load the photo.
Photos on the mainsite do still work well.

I'm using Opera on Win7 64bit. I've already cleared my cache and cookies for tamiyaclub.com, but it did not help a thing.
I've also tried Firefox, which worked. I assume there may be some broken Javascript or HTML code, which could prevent the photos from showing in some browsers.

EDIT 21.04.2015:

The problem is not caused by Tamiyaclub, but by Photobucket.

Here's a hotfix to that problem:

http://www.tamiyaclub.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=69187&p=584124

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here you go:

w8f23d6zuk1.gif

As I said, this is just happening with one particular browser on my computer. But it did not happen before last weekend. I wouldn't blame Opera alone, as this symptom may also occur with other types of browsers as well. To be honest, I'd only switch to another browser temporarily if it is absolutely unavoidable. As TC is the only website known to me that has issues with Opera since the update of the forums, while I have no issues on other websites at all.

I would be really glad if there's any way to improve the overall browser compatibilty of TC forums. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, here's the link:

http://www.tamiyaclub.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=69003&st=75#entry483641

And yikes.... It seems I was TOTALLY WRONG! :wacko:The photos in question are hosted by Photobucket.com, not by TC.

Sorry that I bothered you with that. And many thanks for your helpful replies. I'll contact photobucket to see what's up with them, since I let them host a lot of my R/C pictures on their servers, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I browsed through Photobucket's FAQ and found this:

Opera Browser (please read if you use Opera!)

Danny

posted this on December 29, 2012 04:05 pm

The new Photobucket is not currently supported in the Opera browser.

Photobucket develops for and tests with the following browsers:

Chrome (Note that Chrome updates automatically, and often in the background, which can cause occasional problems with the Photobucket site).

Firefox 3.6 or later

Safari 5.0 or later

Internet Explorer 8.0+, Photobucket will NOT function correctly in Internet Explorer 7 or below.

The features and functionality of the Photobucket website may work with other browsers, but Photobucket cannot guarantee compatibility, and the support provided for those browsers may be limited.

Photobucket only supports generally available (GA) releases. Beta versions are not supported.

Much of the functionality of the Photobucket site requires that your Internet browser also supports JavaScript.

Source: http://support.photo...-you-use-Opera-

You know what? That sounds kind of ignorant, since Opera is one of the most used browsers in embedded devices (mobile phones, Nintendo Wii, TV sets, tablets computers) and one of the first browsers to be fully compatible with Cascading Style Sheet web technologies of various revisions. I can't understand why Photobucket's developers have to use some proprietary, none-intercompatible, JavaScript, if they could do better.

I'm pretty much disappointed. :( But it's not your fault, Twinset.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<p>

I browsed through Photobucket's FAQ and found this:

Source: http://support.photo...-you-use-Opera-

You know what? That sounds kind of ignorant, since Opera is one of the most used browsers in embedded devices (mobile phones, Nintendo Wii) and one of the first browsers to be fully compatible with Cascading Style Sheet web technologies of various revisions. I can't understand why Photobucket's developers have to use some proprietary, none-intercompatible, JavaScript, if they could do better.

I'm pretty much disappointed. :( But it's not your fault, Twinset.

Actually, Opera is not a browser which is used very much. Even though it's used in some mobile and other devices (such as the Wii) a very low percentage of actual users, um, use Opera. I don't personally know anyone who surfs the web with their Wii, I'm sure that some do, but I've never seen it in our browser charts.

Opera has some very buggy quirks and I know many web developers (My company and I included) do not include Opera in our standard crossbrowser testing/programing. We will if the client requests it, but most do not want to pay for the time it takes to bring their sites to be viewed 'pixel perfect' in Opera.

Just some insight, bud, not ment to sound contradicting (though i guess it does). Surf the web with whatever browser you like. I use Chrome and FireFox myself.Cheers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thanks for the insight of recent commercial web developing. :) I do not question your knowledge, skills and competence at all.

(...) but most do not want to pay for the time it takes to bring their sites to be viewed 'pixel perfect' in Opera.

True, true. But there's more behind it.

I had developed some smaller websites on my own in the past just as a hobby (still at a time when all developers moaned about the quirks of Internet Explorer 6), and I know that Opera is one of the first browsers that was so brisk to be very tight about parsing well-written HTML, Javascript and CSS code. Other browsers may have a different tolerance threshold regarding faulty code, but back then they affected web developers to be lazy, producing poor-written code without being aware of it. Then Firefox came out, and soon developers saw what opportunities they've left out, when they saw all their layouts crumbling due to erraneous code and stricter, more correct, parsing. Eventually, it's not a fault of Opera, but in the site's code itself. Especially when not every browser is sending it's real name (user agent) in HTTP requests, but using different names to circumvent silly exclusions (still not uncommon today). I think you know that ISPs of mobile devices also often alter the user agent string when redirecting traffic via their proxy servers. All this could lead to biased browser usage statistics.

This is the philosophy I've learned in the past, and I assume it hasn't changed since then:

In theory, a website that complies to strict code standards should be browser intercompatible without any major issues. Nobody really needs pixel-perfect rendering on every device, that's merely impossible and a commonly accepted fact - but at least the site should work at all. This applies even more to bigger sites and web services like Photobucket.

Photobucket is missing out the fundamental feature (accessing picture files) of it's service for Opera and an unknown number of several other browsers (thus locking out customers), and that's just a shame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just did a quick check of the analytics for some of our sites with the heaviest traffic and most diversified visitor demographics. The highest percentage of Opera users I can find is 0.28%. Not a particularly high percentage. :)

I wouldn't advise the time to style a large site for Opera a good return on investment. In the early to mid 2000s Opera had a lot of promise, but it has not lived up to it's potential. There are numerous tools and features which slow it down, and the way it handles layout, is pretty bad. When a site viewed in IE7 needs less tweaking to be pixel perfect, than Opera, it says something. Opera is a tough browser to style, and it's not an issue of being lazy. It's super buggy, and we do create standard compliant sites, we don't use crazy hacks, bad styling techniques, nor do we create 'thrown together sites'. Chrome and Safari share a similar engine, and Fire Fox has a few styling points which need to be tweaked a pixel or two. IE 8 and 9 play pretty nicely, and follow most standards.

In theory, a site which complies to the standards, should be 'close' in any browser, but all browsers render pages uniquely, and thus have some quirks and differences. As the web becomes more complex, and sites have more features utilizing new techniques and different scripts, we start to see a breakdown. Opera has serious issues with z-index, and some javascript, and with some of the basic layout css. Developing a site in Opera first, then viewing it in another browser, 80% of the time the site is far from looking as intended.

It seems you have a love of Opera, and that's great for ya, just know, it seems that Opera is going the way of Netscape. It's fallen behind and developers are starting to ignore it as a major browser, and thus support is slowing down. I think this trend will continue, and that Opera may be on it's way out.

Hope this helps you understand the reasoning behind Photobucket, and many other sites' lack of support for Opera.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well said.

I personally don't think Opera will go eventually the Netscape way, and even Netscape had Mozilla as their successor. Even more as I'm enjoying this browser and all its great features that I'm missing from Firefox and Chrome since so many years. :) I think you've read my thoughts about biased browser statistics, haven't you? Also, I have a feeling that you did not listened to me what I was really criticising. Maybe I haven't stated it clearly enough, so please let me explain it with more details.

What I would like to know:

Do you have any idea why Photobucket prevents user's picture files to be loaded with Opera recently? I say "prevent", because to me as being just the average user of their services it looks to me just as they don't want me to load my own and other users' pictures. Be it on their own photobucket.com website or embedded in other sites. Whereas the rest of the photobucket website, including graphical elements, are looking just fine. Even the heavily JavaScript based uploading mechanism worked flawlessly for me in the past and hasn't changed recently. While just serving and loading simple picture files shouldn't be a hard task at all*. The whole case is just so illogical.

I haven't tried another user-agent string yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if it all "magically" works again if disguised as an older version of Opera or some totally different browser.

*as long as you're not using a plain text based browser like Lynx. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wohoo, Photobucket is now again allowing Opera users to load their pictures.

Let's see how long this bliss lasts. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could be that Photobucket's new uploader wasn't playing nicely with Opera, and it took more time to work the bugs out.

I do hear what you're saying about biased based browser stats, but I can see the breakdown of every visitor to the sites we manage, and 0.28% is very, very low. Opera may be strict compliant, but that doesn't mean it's the best browser. I'm not saying it's not to some, but to me, oh headaches.

Our browser stats give breakdowns of device, platform, broswer, loaded/allowed scripts, os, and much more, so even a Wii, I can still see the browser. ;)

Yes Netscape led to Mozilla, and thus is the way of tech. But I know quite a few people who were 'hardcore' Opera users who have given it up in favor of Chrome.

I use Chrome for browsing, searching, and general web usage, and FF for development.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could be that Photobucket's new uploader wasn't playing nicely with Opera, and it took more time to work the bugs out.

Well, no I don't think so. It's not my intention to just prove you wrong. But what I want is to get to the heart of the matter, instead of being just comfortable with insufficient answers.

Fact is, it weren't just recently uploaded pictures that weren't shown. This happened to all uploaded pictures ever since, even those that had been uploaded long ago, with whatever older uploading technology.

In my understanding, the only way Photobucket could determine what Browser was used when looking at pictures embedded on external websites, they had to rely on the user-agent string and cookies. My assumption is: Somebody at Photobucket just messed up with their HTTP communication and thus accidentally excluded the recent version of Opera from accessing picture files.

This could have happened with every other browser as well. Another thought is, this accidental exclusion may have not anything to do with Photobucket's statement in their FAQ not to actively support Opera until their beta phase for their new website design is over and the design will be stable. As far as I know, this statement is just a disclaimer to make aware that some functions of the login and uploading process are untested with Opera and several other browsers not mentioned in detail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it has anything to do with browser detection, but rather browser compatibility.

The code to display an image online is basic and has not changed. Now, the complex features which surround the image tag can have issues with certain browsers. I still think Opera's z-index issues have something to do with it. I've had js slideshows which simply will not appear or function correctly when viewed in Opera. They are still there, just behind another element, or not displaying correctly.

I use Photobucket many times a week as I have some clients who utilize it and I also use it to download photos from them. The new Photobucket is completely revised, not really an improvement as far as I'm concerned, and is very feature heavy. I have a hard time believing that Photobucket excluded Opera users on purpose, that makes no sense.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but if you really want to know why, I'd contact Photobucket's customer support.

I'm simply drawing conclusions based on my knowledge and frustration with Opera.

I mean, why would you want to use a browser which has much lower support than others, and is buggy on so many sites? It's kinda like trying to race a Yugo. Sure, you can and could if you want to, but you've gotta do so knowing that support is going to be at a minimum, and your chances of winning a race are slim.

There are literally hundreds of browsers available, and plenty of browser options for just about every device which can access the net. Supporting all of them would be a monumental task. Keeping up with mobile technology, and all of the new technologies coming out is a much more difficult task than most realize. The majority of mobile browsers (except Chrome, Safari,and the top two or three for Android devices) play by their own rules and do crazy things, even to standard compliant sites.

Perhaps give Chrome a chance? The extensions available are fantastic, and Chrome syncs across all of my devices, so I have all of my bookmarks, passwords, etc right there, whenever I need them. I know that most browsers now support some sort of sync technology, but I've yet to use one that was as easy to use, and I've yet to hit a bug with it.

I know you have a passion for Opera, and that's great. If you love the browser, then by all means keep using it. I do see a major downturn in developer suport for Opera in a large number of sites and online applications because of the significantly low percentage of users. The level of browser support is directly related with the percentage of users hitting sites, and Opera is loosing it's extremely small share rather quickly.

Opera is no longer considered a major browser by most web developers. So I have to question your continued frustration and finger pointing at Photobucket, when facts (that I have available to me) and insights are laid out for you.

I hope this post doesn't come across as "know it all" or with a condescending tone. I'm simply trying to give a bit of insight.

I'm sorry you're frustrated, and I hope you find the answers you're looking for.

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The code to display an image online is basic and has not changed. Now, the complex features which surround the image tag can have issues with certain browsers.

What are you talking about? The images had been made completely inaccessible to Opera users. They weren't able to be displayed neither on photobucket.com, nor embedded on external sites, and (Now I admit I should have mentioned that more clearly, but assumed you would understand when reading one of my previous posts) not even if you tried the direct file path.

You are calling me frustrated, but I'd rather say you are frustrated by yourself as you have to deal with programming issues that are not my concern.

You may or may not be delighted to hear that Opera is abandoning the Presto engine and will use the Webkit engine for future releases. You know what, I don't care what engine my browser of choice runs or what its name is, as long as it has all the features I need packed in a neat user interface. I tried a lot of other browsers in the past, and there was none that was able to meet my demands in a better way than Opera. Even the so-called "quirky" Presto engine hasn't created any trouble for me so far, until the recent incident with Photobucket (not your fault), so naturally I'm not 100% believing to these engine-related claims and "downturns" in support.

Still, even with so many disagreements between us two, I want to honestly thank you for your numerous detailed replies and the time you've spent for me to write them down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are you talking about? The images had been made completely inaccessible to Opera users. They weren't able to be displayed neither on photobucket.com, nor embedded on external sites, and (Now I think I should have mentioned that clearly, but assumed you would understand even at one of my previous posts) not even if you tried the direct file path.

You may or may not be delighted to hear that Opera is abandoning the Presto engine and will use the Webkit engine for future releases. You know what? I don't care what engine my browser of choice runs or what its name is, as long as it has all the features I need packed in a neat user interface. I tried a lot of other browsers in the past, and there was none that was able to meet my demands in a better way than Opera.

If the images were not being displayed by Opera, then it's an issue with Opera, not Photobucket. I did read your previous posts, and I've tried to help ya in all the ways I know how. It's most likely a file path issue or character issue. The code to embed images onto a webpage still has not changed in decades, no matter what you're opinion on the subject is. I understand you are frustrated, but the tone is unacceptable to someone who's taking the time to respond to your questions. I know that typed responses can come across as a harsher tone than is intended, which is why I let you know my tone was not intended as such.I own and run a new media design studio, going on 10 years now, and 6 years of graphic design before that. I still hand code many of our sites, and 98% of the advanced features for all of the sites we build. This is my profession. I do it day in and day out, 60+ hours a week.So, let me ask, what are YOU talking about?Why such a rude response to the suggestion of trying a different browser? I've coddled your Opera Obsession, and been very polite regarding suggestions of other browsers. I've stated and respected that you have the right to use whatever browser you wish. I've answered your questions, addressed your concerns, but yet you don't seem to want to hear anything negative about Opera. That's just weird. I've never known anyone to have such a attachment to a browser, and I have super geeks that work for me. As far as Opera going from Presto to Webkit, it's a good move, but most likely too late to really save them, or make them a major player. I will not continue to add to this thread, as it's taken up quite a bit of my time, and it seems that my insights and thoughts are falling on deaf ears.I hope you find a solution to your frustration, and an appreciation for the time and energy put into responses to your questions.B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if this discussion may not have been gone perfectly well, doesn't mean it's just bad at all.

I've enjoyed sharing opinions with you and it was interesting for me to pick up your thoughts. What we can't expect in such discussions is however that the conversational partners will always outright adopt each others mind. There'll always be somebody out in the world with a different point of view than yours or mine on whatever simple or complex topic, and I don't see a problem within that fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since Photobucket randomly drops support for Opera 12.17 from time to time, I was investigating the issue further.

According to a discussion on the Opera forums, it seems like Photobucket is just using broken code or having an invalid behaviour.

Good thing there's a workaround that works pretty well for me.

original post by drewfx

OK, I'm glad it seems to be working for everyone (knock on wood)! Please post if this is still causing problems.

I'm going to rewrite the instructions here, with hopefully the correction showing properly by delimiting the asterisks, to make it easier if we want to refer to it in the future.

Workaround fix for Photobucket embedded images not displaying in 12.17

I'm not sure if this will cause any problems for other sites, but try this in 12.17:

  • Open the opera:config advanced configuration page.
  • Go to the "Network" section.

  • Under "HTTP Accept" enter the following string:

image/gif, image/jpeg, image/pjpeg, application/x-ms-application, application/vnd.ms-xpsdocument, application/xaml+xml, application/x-ms-xbap, application/x-shockwave-flash, */*

  • Hit the save button at the bottom of the Network section.
  • See if Photobucket images are working.

Source:

http://forums.opera.com/discussion/comment/15212503#Comment_15212503

And here you go for those interested, the cause of the problem:

original post by pigeon--the-real-one

Having just solved this problem for myself (by using wireshark to compare the headers sent by Opera with the headers sent by wget, which does successfully retrieve the image) and then found this thread from googling to see if anyone else had been complaining about it, I feel it is worth posting to clarify a couple of points...

  • It is NOT Opera's fault

  • It IS Photobucket's fault

Photobucket have misconfigured their servers to react weirdly to the Accept: header. Other sites which do not react weirdly are quite happy with Opera's default Accept: header. It's not Opera doing something wrong, it's Photobucket.

Source: http://forums.opera.com/discussion/comment/15213952#Comment_15213952

Cheers,

GregM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...